DEC/BOND Disaster Risk Reduction Group Joint Workshop

DEC/BOND Disaster Risk Reduction Group Joint Workshop

DRR Principles in Recovery

10th July 2006

1. INTRODUCTION

In response to a potential gap identified in assessing the success of post-disaster recovery work, the BOND DRR Group and the Disasters Emergency Committee came together to host a joint workshop on DRR in recovery.

The aim of the workshop was to share relevant experiences relating to DRR in recovery, and to consider the development of principles or standards. Philip Buckle, from Coventry University acted as facilitator.

2.  PRESENTATIONS

A) PHYSICAL RECONSTRUCTION, Marilies Turnbull, Oxfam UK

Brazil Floods

Key issue was relocation of families living on river banks. Land was offered from 3 different sources: from the church, but miles away; from the municipal authorities but with elections upcoming in 4 months; and from a private sugar cane factory. All offers of land came with an expectation of involvement in targeting. Other key issues were proximity to livelihoods and the (lack of) availability to services in new sites.

One year on, good quality houses had been built, but it was clear that families needed money more than the house. As time passes, peoples fear of the risk decreases, and need to find income sources increases.

One of the lessons was the need for more investment in public education around these issues. Guiding principles to deal with these dilemmas would have been helpful.

Earthquakes in Colombia and Peru

In Peru, for status symbol reasons, people preferred cement block houses to the more quake resistant modified adobe houses. What should the principle be on this? More public awareness on the benefits of adobe could have been done.

In Colombia, on paper building standards are high but in practice they are not. Oxfam having to rebuild houses to legal standards, but this made them too expensive for locals.

Conflict in Colombia

A need to relocate families affected by conflict to Medellin and Bogota.

In Medellin, land was offered by the church on the steep slopes, but the displaced people were from the coast and built their houses not taking into consideration the affects of water movement down the slopes.

In Bogota, Oxfam was told it couldn’t build in high risk areas by the authorities – so how then can you help the most vulnerable?

Lessons learned

·  Changing attitudes and beliefs is key

·  Working with the state is key

To increase impact:

·  Set a good example by not encouraging reconstruction in high risk areas

·  Find low cost options others can copy

·  Combine relief with longer term investment

B)  LIVELIHOODS, Terry Canon, University of Greenwich

Pre-Disaster

What is knowledge base before disaster on LHs? Often agencies are not working in disaster areas, even if they do work in another part of the country.

Relief

What do we do to understand LHs in relief phase?

Perhaps could have an index of experts around the world to quickly acquire and share knowledge.

What is the impact of relief on LHs? – sometimes can impact negatively, e.g. drinking water project in Atlas Mts emphasised divisions between rich and poor; in Ethiopia food aid project increased power of previously weak tribal leaders.

Recovery

What are the principles in relation to LHs?

·  Recovery – to what? poor state of before?

·  Respect culture and don’t interfere or support change? (e.g. gender inequities)

·  What impact has relief had on recovery?

·  Is recovery conscious of the move to development?

·  Can it be more integrated? – e.g. Danish Red Cross work found LHs best way to address psychosocial problems.

C)  PUBLIC EDUCATION/MULTI-HAZARD/EW, Nick Hall, Plan International

Need a common set of principles above individual hazard level. For Plan these could be based on the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Plan two priorities:

1)  Do No Harm

2)  Build Back Better/safer

The second is hard to do but easier if you are listening well to communities, particularly children. Children see own recovery in broad sense, and often more reliable judgement. In El Salvador, communities took on DRR approach without prompting, e.g. preventing quarrying work to prevent worse flooding in future.

All risks, livelihoods approach to recovery is key.

Key principle is to listen to what local people understand.

In Malawi communities that had had long-standing development relationships appeared to be better prepared for food crisis, but this is difficult to prove, and when the emergency started communities felt they should get preferential treatment because of their long-standing relationship.

How do we do needs assessment that contributes to the longer term?

D) POLICY & PLANNING, Sophie Harding, Tearfund

Tsunami response provides opportunity for stakeholders to inform policy. Challenges/issues stemming from this include:

Coordination

Where does co-ordination come in? Relief, Recovery, Development? Where does DRR fit?

Capacity

Technical capacity to follow up may be limited. In Sri Lanka, no previous policies on disaster risk reduction, but now Parliamentary Select Committee, Policy, Road Map as response to tsunami.

Ownership

Must be seen to be owned by state.

But also need to get decisions from ‘top’ to local level (e.g. confusion around buffer zones)

TEC report highlights lack of DRR in tsunami programming. What is mix of technical vs. community approaches on DRR?

Sustainability

What happens when international funding dries up? How can policy be turned into practice?

Personnel

Lack of expertise, staff, information. e.g. Sri Lanka, information not available for 12 months.

Government

Trust and holding to account for delivering promises.

3.  PLENARY DISCUSSIONS

·  Must get INGO role in perspective – we shouldn’t be trying to get affected people to do what we want. Local people must participate at least equally.

·  Commonality of issues across natural or political ‘disasters’ when viewed from perspective of people (e.g. land issues)

·  Where does the private sector come in, particularly given importance of livelihoods?

·  Recognise need to work with state, but failing state can be cause of the problems.

·  There is a need to combine conceptually the approaches of recovery management, disaster mitigation, development and develop a shared understanding.

·  Priorities/standards at national level of donors, different in relation to how applied overseas.

·  Advocacy on policy change around DRR –we need to be clearer about the models/ frameworks we are supporting (e.g. DM Institutes, Ministries, etc.)

·  Disasters also provide an opportunity to increase resilience.

·  Larger/smaller NGOs may have different perspectives and standards – how do we ensure commonality?

·  Any standards developed must be hierarchical to deal with sometimes competing principles. There might be fundamental non-negotiable principles at the top level with derived principles underneath.

·  There are standards out there – the issue is more about incentives for achieving standards.

4. GROUP WORK – TOWARDS PRINCIPLES FOR DRR

POLICY

·  Recognition that we are ALL responsible at ALL stages of recovery for increasing resilience of affected populations (e.g. incorporate hazard mapping into early needs assessments)

·  To advocate on agreed principles of DRR in recovery

·  Promote a common/shared? Understanding of DRR (what, why, how..)

·  Recognition that DRR in recovery requires collaboration with all stakeholders, including grassroots advocacy initiatives

·  Promote policy change for DRR by

1)  learning from disasters

2)  using disasters as a catalyst for change (i.e. develop legislative frameworks)

·  Promote media awareness of DRR through:

1)  coordinated approaches before disasters

2)  taking advantage of attention on disasters to promote an understanding of DRR

PHYSICAL RECONSTRUCTION

Land

·  The risk taker/those affected make the final decision (driving seat/centre) (e.g. forced relocation)

·  We must do all we can to ensure those affected have the information to make an ‘informed decision’

·  We have to adapted our procedures to the principles we agree to

·  There should be a change of gear once the initial humanitarian imperative has been met. Stand back and reassess situation and solutions

·  Continue to measure impact past project over longer timeframe (e.g. 10yrs)

Standards

·  We commit to supporting people (whatever their choice) to reduce risks. E.g. lobbying/empowering people on land tenure, building standards, services, location/planning.

·  We do not substitute for the state

·  We commit to accountability and transparency i.e. HAPI

Environment

·  Environmental assessment non-negotiable. Realising the impact (not ness expert) informs decisions.

·  Using resources where appropriate that are local and harvested in a sustainable way.

·  Need to maximise on working with other experts, CBOs, relevant orgs (lot of hardware is new to NGOs, and is road building etc. appropriate remit of INGOs?)

·  Reconstruction is more than 4 walls and a roof.

o  health and sanitation, security, EQ materials

o  homes are also social and productive

·  Local laws/regulations can exclude NGOs from working with the poorest and may prevent them carrying out their decisions - different stances by (e.g. agreeing to this/constrained by donors, or being kicked out)

·  Do you do it for them? Or provide capital funds and control standards?

LIVELIHOODS

·  At emergency relief stage must already be thinking about recovery and LHs

o  knowledge of people/LHs e.g. sust LHs framework

o  co-ordination/coherence

·  Shift from ‘cash for work‘ to LHs. Link not acknowledged. Skills development.

·  Development work must be sensitive to vulnerability and disaster risks – how do we make (development) work useful in an emergency?

·  Disaster response work must therefore be linked to development and LHs

·  Can we always help the poorest? May depend on welfare. Can LHs be generated for most needy people?

·  Support for local businesses/employers/suppliers

- can restore wage LHs for many?

- part of solution but also part of problem? Need to find balance.

·  Our choices are based on understanding of the locality. Consultative negotiation process involving: stakeholders, knowledge sharing; whilst acknowledging not possible to solve all!

·  Protect and enhance the environment as this provides LHs

·  Need sustainable approach to:

-  Protect LHs from hazards

-  Strengthen LHs, increase income, etc.

-  Diversify LHs

-  Make LHs more resilient (i.e. shock-proof)

·  SPHERE – first chapter is generic and could be used in both recovery and development

·  How do principles apply to our partners?

PUBLIC EDUCATION

·  Promote local level awareness and ownership in disaster management and a response of risk management (see below), through at local, national govt, regional, international level

o  public education

o  partnerships/ways of working

o  other mechanisms

·  Identification, monitoring, analysis and assessment of risks -> contingency plans -> risk management in development project planning

·  Risk Management Approach

1)  Public education on disaster risk awareness (multi-hazard approach) a priority

2)  Integration of DRR into emergency/recovery and development act ivies a priority

-  good development practice/policies

-  participation

-  needs assessment in relation to community capacity

3)  Build back better – building resilient communities e.g.

-  exit strategy considered at onset

-  early warning systems

-  First Aid training

-  Contingency plans

-  Media education

-  Learning reviews

·  Assess needs in relation to capacities of local populations (e.g. using LHs framework or rights-based approach).

5. NEXT STEPS

A) Product

Develop principles for DRR in recovery to include:

i)  Meta principles

ii)  Derivative principles

iii)  Key concepts explained (e.g. resilient community, participation, risk assessment ‘good agency’ approach)

B) Process

Principles

·  Engage those affected by disaster at some point in consultation

·  Test in the real world (possible test in DEC Asia Quake evaluative process)

·  Promote/discuss/liase with existing initiatives/groups (e.g. SCHR, Provention)

·  Agencies to promote and discuss idea in own agencies

Working Group

A working group was formed to:

- Develop product as above

- Map against existing standards/principles/initiatives and place in timeframe context

- Consult and test product

- Share and promote finish product widely

Working Group volunteers:

6

1)  Philip Buckle, Coventry University

2)  Marcus Oxley, Tearfund

3)  Nick Hall, Plan

4)  Bina Desai, Christian Aid

5)  Richard Cobb (TBC), Islamic Relief

6)  Oxfam (TBC)

7)  Concern (TBC)

6

Action Points

1)  Write up notes from workshop (Simon Starling)

2)  Put on agenda at ‘DFID DRR group’ meeting on Thurs 13th July (Nick Hall)

3)  BOND DRR group to revisit progress at next meeting (Tearfund)

4)  Phil to convene working group (PB)

6